Germans must work as prostitutes?

[username]

Germans must work as prostitutes

A 25-year-old waitress who turned down a job providing "sexual services'' at a brothel in Berlin faces possible cuts to her unemployment benefit under laws introduced this year.

Prostitution was legalised in Germany just over two years ago and brothel owners – who must pay tax and employee health insurance – were granted access to official databases of jobseekers.

Now this is just wrong.

First Swedes imprisoning pastors for preaching from the bible against homosexuality inside their churches and now Germany requiring folks to become prostitutes or lose unemployment benefits?

The US is frequently criticised, sometimes fairly, other times not, but as an American it is almost refreshing to see that other nations are screwy as well

 

[Darat]

Germans must work as prostitutes



Now this is just wrong.

First Swedes imprisoning pastors for preaching from the bible against homosexuality inside their churches and now Germany requiring folks to become prostitutes or lose unemployment benefits?

The US is frequently criticised, sometimes fairly, other times not, but as an American it is almost refreshing to see that other nations are screwy as well

The logic seems pretty sound to me.

The state makes a benefit available to unemployed people, one of the conditions is that you must be willing to take any job you are suitable for...

Do I think this is right or wrong?

Well I don’t think the “sex industry” is “wrong” so no problems on those grounds.

I think it would be wrong if the state was in effect saying “you must have sex” however I think there is a way out of that particular dilemma. Consider that is the fact that we legislate that a “sexual act” must be consensual else it is a criminal offence. Therefore no one can be forced by the state to undertake a sexual act, whether the sex industry is legal or not.

 

[Number Six]

Wait a second...no one can be forced to have sex against their will but then again no one can be forced to, say, be an accountant against their will, but if you're on unemployment and an accountant job comes open that you can do then they can make you take it or else cut your benefits.

That article makes it sound like her choices are (a) have sex as a prostitutes or (b) lose benefits. If that's really what's happening it just seems wrong.

 

[richardm]

One thing that's worth bearing in mind is that the Telegraph is a right-wing newspaper that is rabidly anti-EU. So any story that might reflect badly on our European neighbours is liable to by hyped out of all reality.

It wouldn't surprise me to learn that there are some critical details missing from the story (e.g. the true parts).

 

[RussDill]

I think this is being made more of a big deal than it is. In the US, if you don't take a job by the time your unemployment benifits expire, you lose you benifits. Isn't the same thing happening here? Or do unemployment benifits in germany extend beyond their expiration and terminate if you don't take a suggested job?

Suppose you'd need that in germany given their unemployment rates.

 

[username]

I think this is being made more of a big deal than it is. In the US, if you don't take a job by the time your unemployment benifits expire, you lose you benifits. Isn't the same thing happening here? Or do unemployment benifits in germany extend beyond their expiration and terminate if you don't take a suggested job?

For me the issue is the fact that the job is prostitution. The legality of prostitution isn't a concern to me nor is the 'morality' of the job, although I am sure many would find working as a prostitute to be immoral or against their religion or whathaveyou.

Imagine a married couple with kids struggling to make ends meet and the wife is forced to choose between selling her body for sex or not putting food on the table due to loss of unemployment compensation. That just seems absurd.

In the US, as far as I know you don't have to take just any job. You have to go out and apply for x number of jobs within a certain time frame. If you are accepted for a job you applied for you have to have a 'good' reason for turning it down. As far as I know there is no such thing as a "suggested" job that you must accept or lose benefits.

 

[Psi Baba]

From the article:

The government had considered making brothels an exception on moral grounds, but decided that it would be too difficult to distinguish them from bars.

Wow. German bars must be pretty wild places if they are indistinguishable from brothels! St. Pauli Girl takes on whole new meaning . . .

 

[AWPrime]

I think, I found the original german article:

http://www.taz.de/pt/2004/12/18/a0077.nf/text

 

[RussDill]

In the US, as far as I know you don't have to take just any job. You have to go out and apply for x number of jobs within a certain time frame. If you are accepted for a job you applied for you have to have a 'good' reason for turning it down. As far as I know there is no such thing as a "suggested" job that you must accept or lose benefits.

Being on unemployment is the US is not comfortable, unless your severance package was really good, so there is a great deal of motivation to get a new job quickly. Perhaps in germany, being on unemployment isn't so bad, so they need to provide greater motivation.

 

[Tricky]

If it's at all like the US, then you don't have to keep the job, just show that you tried. If they fire you because you are no good as a sex worker (since you are unable to remove your clothes in front of a stranger), then you're back on the dole.

But suppose some down-and-out girl took the job in order to keep their benefits, fully intending to be so bad that she would have to be fired. But then, her very first "john" is a tender, caring young man who is there just because he wants companionship. The girl takes the job, and realizes what an important job she does for lonely men. She becomes a devoted and hard-working prostitute, rising in the ranks until she is the most loved and beloved woman in all of Germany.

Well, that's the way it happens in the movies anyway.

 

[toddjh]

In general, I think people on unemployment should be required to take a job if they're qualified for it, but I do think there should be exceptions when the person has a strong ethical or religious objection to it. That objection should be examined closely, but I don't think many people would have trouble believing that a woman would have a strong objection to having sex with strangers all day.

Jeremy

 

[SwissSkeptic]

I think, I found the original german article:

http://www.taz.de/pt/2004/12/18/a0077.nf/text

Yes that's the original article and it's talking about a hypothetical scenario that might happen because of a new legislation and seems to have a strong agenda against it. As far as I understand it no particular person had to make a choice to work as a prostitute or else to lose benefits. But maybe some of the German posters here can clear things up...

 

[bjornart]

One thing that's worth bearing in mind is that the Telegraph is a right-wing newspaper that is rabidly anti-EU. So any story that might reflect badly on our European neighbours is liable to by hyped out of all reality.

It wouldn't surprise me to learn that there are some critical details missing from the story (e.g. the true parts).

I did a search on the woman's name. One hit. The telegraph article.
As the German article linked to above points out, this is a hypothetical conjecture based on the legalisation of brothels together with unemployment benefit legistlation.
In the article a representative of the unemployment office admits that theoretically a brothel could register openings with the unemployment office, and that theoretically someone then could not turn down the job. But he also points out that A) brothels don't register openings for prostitutes with the unemployment office for several reason, and B) no unemployment office employee wishing to keep his job would be stupid enough to refuse the reasonable answer "no I won't work in a brothel" from a prospective employee

 

[username]

In the article a representative of the unemployment office admits that theoretically a brothel could register openings with the unemployment office, and that theoretically someone then could not turn down the job. But he also points out that A) brothels don't register openings for prostitutes with the unemployment office for several reason, and B) no unemployment office employee wishing to keep his job would be stupid enough to refuse the reasonable answer "no I won't work in a brothel" from a prospective employee

Yes, but:

As to A, the reasons brothels don't register job openings with the unemployment office could change. The article says at least one brothel has registered positions with the UE office.

As to B, it would seem that the UE office worker could get fired after the UE office was sued by the brothel for allowing the unemployed person to opt out of the employment when they cannot opt out for other employment opportunities.

I can totally accept that this is a hypothetical scenario, but hypothetical doesn't mean it cannot happen. Indeed the Telegraph article states it has happened. Whether or not the woman will lose her benefits is not yet certain.

I am not familiar with the Telegraph, one person said it is a right wing propaganda paper. That could be the case, I don't know. Regardless, the bias of the source doesn't seem relevant as long as the facts presented are accurate.

 

[ZeeGerman]

Holy cow, I thought this was a skeptics board.

1. There is no actual case.
Evereything is completely hypothetical.

2. Fact is, prostitutoin is legal and yes, hypothetically, someone who is suggested a job as a prostitute and declined could lose his benefits.
3. Another fact is, that the employees of the job agencies are supposed to use common sense in their decisionsand they usually do. And if you think the job suggestion is not acceptable you can sue the agency when they cut your money. Has happened before and will happen again. That's what courts are for. In a hypothetical case like this its a 100% win.

The legislation cannot forsee all possible combinations of circumstancies.

Should they write down in the law , that vegans must not be forced to work in a slaughter house, or a muslim/jew in a pigs farm, or a gay in a well known skin-head bar?

Really....

Zee

 

[Number Six]

Well it's reported as fact on that website so while we can be skeptical of the source (as we should be with all sources), the fact that the article states it as having occurred makes people think that it has occurred.

I first saw the article on a message board in the context of "Ha, ha, those Europeans are doing crazy things again" and I thought it might not be strictly true but I can't go back and say "Hey, some European guy on another message board said it's not true" so I'd like to have a website to send them to refuting the article.

 

[ZeeGerman]

Well it's reported as fact on that website so while we can be skeptical of the source (as we should be with all sources), the fact that the article states it as having occurred makes people think that it has occurred.

I first saw the article on a message board in the context of "Ha, ha, those Europeans are doing crazy things again" and I thought it might not be strictly true but I can't go back and say "Hey, some European guy on another message board said it's not true" so I'd like to have a website to send them to refuting the article.

So read the TAZ article. It's a hypothetical discussion, nothing more.

And why would anyone care to refute everything stupid the telegraph pulls out of its arse?

Zee

 

[Number Six]

So read the TAZ article. It's a hypothetical discussion, nothing more.

And why would anyone care to refute everything stupid the telegraph pulls out of its arse?

Zee

I'm talking about a message board in the USA, where telling them to read the TAZ article isn't an option since they can't read German and telling them the article is wrong because it's the Telegraph isn't an option because they don't know anything about the Telegraph.

 

[hgc]

Well it's reported as fact on that website so while we can be skeptical of the source (as we should be with all sources), the fact that the article states it as having occurred makes people think that it has occurred.

I first saw the article on a message board in the context of "Ha, ha, those Europeans are doing crazy things again" and I thought it might not be strictly true but I can't go back and say "Hey, some European guy on another message board said it's not true" so I'd like to have a website to send them to refuting the article.

Sometimes you just have to resort to common sense. Yes, skepticism allows for it (at least my brand of skepticism does). Az ZG says, it's easy to see how the consequence of combination of 2 unrelated laws could lead to this conumdrum. Now who really believes that anyone in Germany will ever lose their unemployment benefits because they refuse to work as a prostitute, despite what appears on The Telegragh website? Raise your hands.

 

[Ian Osborne]

It's easy to see how the consequence of combination of 2 unrelated laws could lead to this conumdrum. Now who really believes that anyone in Germany will ever lose their unemployment benefits because they refuse to work as a prostitute, despite what appears on The Telegragh website? Raise your hands.

A similar conundrum arose in the UK a few years back, when the Government closed the dedicated military recruitment offices and made the armed forces advertise in job centres instead. As we also demand the unemployed take any job they're capable of doing, some commentators pointed out we'd reintroduced conscription by the back door. And yet, I don't recall a single case of someone losing benefits for refusing to enlist, and I doubt there ever has been such a case.